45-200, 75-300 or 100-300 what to get for Kenya Safari

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by StefanKruse, Jan 30, 2017.

  1. Panasonic 45-200

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. panasonic 100-300

    38.1%
  3. Oly 75-300

    61.9%
  1. StefanKruse

    StefanKruse Mu-43 Veteran

    433
    Jan 28, 2015
    Denmark
    Stefan
    Hi all,

    I am going to Kenya for a week of safari and am contemplating which lens to get the 45-200mm Panasonic, 100-300mm panasonic or the olympus 75-300mm.

    It will go on my E-M10. I already have the oly 40-150mm f4-5.6 but my thoughts are:

    45-200 cheaper option and I could sell the 40-150mm, but is the 200mm reach enough?
    100-300mm same price as the 75-300mm but slightly faster at the long end, but will it focus as well as the the ly 75-300mm?
    75-300mm a bit wider than the 100-300 but slightly slower but read it does focus slightly faster on oly cameras.

    I cant afford any of the more expensive options, unfortunately, so they are not an option. Plus I dont do alot of tele and thus a cheaper solution makes sens for me.

    Thanks for any input

    Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated
     
  2. rloewy

    rloewy Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    May 5, 2014
    Ron
    I have the 75-300 and the 45-200 - and my vote would go for the 75-300 between these. I like the images from the 75-300 much better than the 45-200.

    No experience with the 100-300 - so my contribution is only to suggest that you eliminate the 45-200.

    FWIW - I find the 40-150 f4-5.6 better than the 45-200 anywhere in the range they both cover.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    IQ wise there is not really any difference between the 75-300 and 100-300. The biggest difference is the Panasonic is limited in fps because of the older focusing and aperture mechanisms. For that reason I would get the Olympus. Now, if you can wait for the mk2 of the Panasonic I would get that.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. RAH

    RAH Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    439
    Dec 1, 2013
    New Hampshire
    Rich
    I had the same choice to make a few months ago and chose the 75-300. I did so mainly because I wanted the lens to be a lightweight and small as possible (for travel), and also because the impression I got from various sources was that the built quality was nicer with the 75-300. I got a "LN-" quality ("like new minus") one at KEH for $339, which is cheaper than I could get a 100-300 for, I think.

    I haven't used the lens much so far (bought it for a trip in September), but I like its IQ so far on the images I have taken.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Holoholo55

    Holoholo55 Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Aug 13, 2014
    Honolulu, HI
    Walter
    I have the Oly 40-150 R and had the Pana 45-200. I agree with @rloewy@rloewy that the Oly was better than the Pana. However, since I needed longer range than the little Oly, I replaced the 45-200 with a Oly ZD 50-200 SWD + EC-14 for my EM1. If you had an EM1 or EM1.2, that would be a lens I'd recommend. I have no experience with the 75-300 or 100-300.

    If the Panasonic 100-300 II comes out before you go, that would be worth considering.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Zman

    Zman Mu-43 Regular

    54
    Oct 11, 2016
    My used Oly 75-300 arrived just today. Took it out for a quick try and am very pleased with its performance and the quality of images it produced on my E-M10. It is compact , light, and feels just right on my camera. Best of all, it cost me less than $300 USD and is in excellent condition. If you have the time, search around for a used model.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. greenboy

    greenboy Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Just curious: you guys talking 75-300 or 75-300 II? The II is better.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I always forget that the current want is a mk2. So, yes
     
  9. Hazza

    Hazza Just Clicking Subscribing Member

    827
    Aug 10, 2013
    Huddersfield UK
    Harry
    I picked up a used 75-300 mk2 for £149 with 6 months warranty, I am very happy with it and have taken some great shots with it. I had a Panasonic 100-300 a while ago which also produced some really nice images but was a bit more hit and miss and focus was slower to lock on. The Panasonic does have the advantage of a slightly faster f. stop but that didn't really sway my decision and the Olympus is more compact for travel.
    Which ever one you decide to go with will be more than equal to the task in good light.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. SVQuant

    SVQuant Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 20, 2015
    SF Bay Area, California, USA
    Sameer
    I had the O75-300II on my E-M10 (sold the lens a couple of weeks ago) and it was my gateway lens to m43. It is a awesome lens for its weight/cost/performance and worked really well as a travel lens for me. Unfortunately, inspired by others on this forum I picked up an E-M1 + O50-200SWD (and EC-14) and decided that I didn't two lenses to cover this range. I had looked at the P100-300 as well when I made this decision and found that the IQ was comparable between the two. The slower f/6.7 aperture was occasionally a challenge for wildlife at dawn/dusk but otherwise worked well.

    One thing I would recommend getting if you don't already have it is the ECG-1 grip. The 75-300 feels much better balanced with it on the camera. Another thing I found initially was that the lens can occasionally be little soft on the long end. But with practice, I found myself getting sharper images at 300mm. So my recommendation would be to get the lens with enough time to spare before your trip so that you can get used to the long end.

    Here are a couple of wildlife examples from my first trip with this lens. The second shot is at dusk, 300mm and ISO 3200.
    View attachment 503024

    View attachment 503025
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. RAH

    RAH Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    439
    Dec 1, 2013
    New Hampshire
    Rich
    I was talking about the II, which I got used (LN-) at KEH for $339. Sometimes you see it on the Oly "reconditioned" website too, which is a good place to buy if the price is right, IMHO.
     
  12. greenboy

    greenboy Mu-43 Top Veteran

    to me the lens is so light i don't see a grip as a priority, even on a small body. of course i usually use my other hand to support if shooting long shots. but what do you do when you target shoot with a rifle that's got a heavy barrel? -- you use your other hand of course ; }
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Is this a one/twice in a life time type of trip? If so I have a different suggestion for.

    Buy the 100-400 with the plan to sell when you get home. I shoot Nikon as well as m4/3 now. Before I got into m4/3 whenever I was going on a long trip I would buy a Nikon 80-400 and sell it shortly after I returned. It normally cost me about $100-$200 to "rent" it for about a month.

    Of course if you could regularly use 300mm the 75-300 or 100-300 might be a better option. But the 100-400 is really a better lens and is on my wish list.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    They said they could not afford the more expensive options. Even tho in the end it may only cost $100 to buy and sell when done, that is $1500 tied up until then.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. greenboy

    greenboy Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Not to mention that 75mm is often a threshold for a lot of shots where 100 would be too "close". For a long time I shot with 12-40 and 75-300 and that gap between the two was not too much of a problem. I too like the idea of the 100-400 though, at some point perhaps...
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. HRC2016

    HRC2016 Mu-43 Regular

    76
    Dec 6, 2016
    I disagree for a couple of reasons:
    - the cost which you will have to pay upfront
    - the resell value is dropping ahead if the new 100-300 release
    - the lens is very large/heavy, and not good for travel
    - a challenge to hold on the em10 (which I also own).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. greenboy

    greenboy Mu-43 Top Veteran

    I guess I don't think the 100-400 is too heavy for travel. That factor would not deter me, at any rate...
     
  18. rloewy

    rloewy Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    May 5, 2014
    Ron
    The Mk 2 has different coating to reduce reflection. Given the opportunity to choose between the two - the Mk 2 is better - but optically they are pretty much the same for most purposes.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. SVQuant

    SVQuant Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 20, 2015
    SF Bay Area, California, USA
    Sameer
    Ron, I don't think that the O75-300II is weather-sealed. Maybe you have it confused with the O14-150II?
     
  20. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    You are correct..........the Panasonic 100-300 mk2 is going to be weather sealed tho.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1